Sonya: The government of Copeland is raising the cigarette tax. Copeland's cigarette prices will still be reasonably low, so cigarette consumption will probably not be affected much. Consequently, government revenue from the tax will increase.
Raoul: True, smoking is unlikely to decrease, because Copeland's cigarette prices will still not be high. They will, however, no longer be the lowest in the region, so we might begin to see substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes in Copeland.
Raoul responds to Sonya's argument by doing which of the following?
Questioning the support for Sonya's conclusion by distinguishing carefully between no change and no decrease
Calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change
Arguing that Sonya's conclusion would be better supported if Sonya could cite a precedent for what she predicts will happen
Showing that a cause that Sonya claims will be producing a certain effect is not the only cause that could produce that effect
Pointing out that a certain initiative is not bold enough to have the effect that Sonya predicts it will have
表明Sonya说会产生一种影响的原因不是会产生这种影响的唯一原因,真的绕,累了
R:但是加税以后香烟价格不再是这片地区最低的,有可能会出现走私香烟被出售。问R是如何反驳S
choice b, 通过指出一个可能的结果来challenge S的结论。correct,S忽视了可能会出现走私烟,因而正规渠道的香烟sales可能受影响
choice e, 指出一个行为不足以产生S预言会产生的结果。incorrect,给香烟加税收的确有可能产生税收全部增加的结果,R并没有challenge这个预期会产生的结果。
Premise: C地政府准备提高香烟税收,但是该地香烟价格会依然较低。
Premise: 香烟的消耗量不会怎么受影响。
Conclusion: 政府从香烟方面的税收也不会增加。
R:
Premise: 香烟的消耗的确不会减少。
Premise: 可是政府的香烟却不再是最低价,
Conclusion: 所以我们会看到C地出现很多非法运输香烟。
R回应S的方法?(找出P和C )
常识:走私不交税,所以【R认为政府的税收不会增加】,正好与S的结论相反。
B. Calling Sonya's conclusion into question by pointing to a possible effect of a certain change
通过指出某种变化可能产生的影响,对S的结论提出质疑。(√)质疑Conclusion
A. 通过仔细区分 "没有变化 "和 "没有减少 "来质疑对S结论的支持。(×)不是质疑support,即不是质疑Premise
C. 如果S能举出她所预测会发生的事情的【先例precedent 】,就能更好地支持索尼娅的结论》(×)无关。R并没有质疑S的结论是没有先例的。
D. 表明S声称将产生某种效果的原因cause 并不是【唯一the only】可能产生这种效果的原因。(×)无关。R并没有质疑这个唯一性。
E. 指出某项举措【不够大胆not bold enough】,无法产生S预测的效果。(×)无关。R并没有指出举措不够大胆。
Support: cigarette price still low, consumption stays the same
Conclusion: tax revenue will increase
Raoul: question the conclusion by saying that tax revenue won't increase because people consume more illegal cigarettes (less 本土烟)
⚠️illegal sales of smuggled是走私非法销售的意思
上面的人说:烟价不高所以销量不会有很大改变,但是税收高,所以政府会增加收入
虾面的人说:确实价格不高,但是这不是最低的,存在非法走私
注意!!!这道题的关键点在收入被政府拿了还是走私掉了!!所以下面的在削弱上面的
我觉得应该是由于substantial illegal sales of smuggled cigarettes的出现使政府财政收入增加没有Sonya说的那么可能,而不是直接否定Sonya说的一定就是错的,感觉想一个问题两个角度,Roaul只是怀疑政府财政收入是否会增加这一个结论
bold enough 在这里应该翻译成“足够大胆”还是“足够明显”?登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
没有质疑sonya的support原因,反而是认同了。但是质疑sonya的结论,因为有其他问题出现登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论